Opponents of the private ownership of firearms always claim there is no
need for individuals to own a firearm for self-protection because the
police are entrusted with that duty. Nothing could be further
from the
truth. Courts throughout these United States have consistently
held
that police have no legal duty to provide police protection to any
individual citizen.

In 1981, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision in
a civil suit against the Metropolitan Police Department. In the
syllabus, the Court wrote:

“[The] fact that police answered [the phone call for help] and arrived
outside premises which were scene of burglary and assault did not give
rise to special duty on part of police toward victims therein, and
police officers were not answerable in damages for failing to ascertain
that assaults were continuing upon victims therein, or for leaving
premises without so ascertaining.”

The Court ruled that:

“[G]overnment and its agents are under no legal obligation to provide
public services, such as police protection, to any particular
citizen.
The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and
absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no
specific duty exists.” [Cite for case: D.C. App., 444 A. 2nd 1,
1981]

“A women who was being raped in an Oakland (CA) apartment can’t sue
police for failing to rescue her, even though a friend may have told
officers where she was a state appeals court says.

The officers’ alleged inaction is ‘troubling’ but they had no legal
duty to find and save the woman and did not make her situation worse,
said the 1st District Court of Appeal in a ruling released Wednesday.”

The article went on to state:

“Her suit was dismissed by Alameda Superior Court Judge Demetrios
Agretelis, who said the police had no legal duty to rescue her, the
appeals court majority agreed.

The opinion by Justice Gary Strankman noted that a police officer, like
a private citizen, has no legal duty to come to another person’s
aid.
An officer who undertakes to help, however, can be sued for certain
types of carelessness or misconduct that makes the other person’s
situation worse.”

The police are under no legal obligation to protect you because you
have the inalienable right to protect yourself. That right comes
from
God not government.

This right is enshrined in many State Constitutions. The
first section of the California Constitution states:

“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable
rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and
obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

The next time a big mouth statist, especially a woman, tells you that
government should restrict or ban individual firearms ownership because
the police are under a legal obligation to protect you, kindly shove
the above information in their face. Not only will it put a smile
on
your face, but you will be amazed at how fast it shuts them up and
makes them go away.

Note-I believe this principle should be used in every case where an
individual applies for a concealed carry permit. If the police
are
under no legal obligation to protect you, then where do they get the
right or power deny you the right to protect yourself? If they
deny
the permit and you are damaged at a later date by their decision, I
believe it can change the relationship that immunizes the police from
damages as stated above.

Your comments and feedback are welcome!
Now PoL has its own forum at The Mental Militia! Check
it out

Robert Greenslade
focuses his writing on issues surrounding
the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at
the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically
dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and
consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself
to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that
the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the
system of limited government established by the Constitution.

If you are interested in
finding out more about the
Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles
and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob

Reprint of the 1868
edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of
the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been
published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the
ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government
that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we
are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness
of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists
consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost
monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely
reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers
which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were
general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their
original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was
surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with
great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered
power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government --
they only delegated them. 160 pages.